Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Missile Laser Weapon Successfully Tested

xPertCodert writes "A latest attempt to build a futuristic laser weapon appears to be a success. Joint Israeli-US developed laser destroyed a large caliber rocket in a latest New Mexico test. The press release also contains links to some interesting video and photo material, related to THEL (Tactical High Energy Lasers) defense systems."

17 of 636 comments (clear)

  1. General question... by boomgopher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do peace-types protest defense systems like this so much?
    I've never understood the logic. Defensive weaponry helps reduce the threat of war.


    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    1. Re:General question... by Blastercorps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This system defends against balistic missiles. The only countries that have missiles capable of reaching US soil are Russia and China. Both of these nations are friendly towards the US currently. This is an example of the military preparing to fight the last war.

      Now, don't look at me like I'm a peacenik, I am all for the developement of weapon technology for the obvious combat advantage and the spinoff technologies. BUT, this technology is completely irrelevent to counter-terrorism. Even if a terrorist group gets ahold of a nuclear bomb, it would be easier and cheaper to sneak it into the US than to develope and build ICBMs.

      And even then, this system can only shoot down missiles as they are launched by flying over the enemy's territory. This means that the government has spent billions on a gimmicky star wars program that only works if we invade another country's airspace, a.k.a. an act of war.

    2. Re:General question... by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Some people see building defenses as giving us a tactical offensive advantage, which it does. That is to say, if we have a fleet of these while nobody else does, that delicate balance that existed during the cold war would be no more. The threat of retaliation in kind is reduced, if not eliminated.

      It's no big deal on its own, but as Dennis Leary once said, "We've got the bombs, okay people? Nuclear f*cking weapons!"

      That changes things some.

      I'm all for anything that actually improves our safety, but often a lot of money goes into things that are supposed to but don't. This could well end up being one of those things. It's also better if we don't piss off the neighbors in the process.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    3. Re:General question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because of the way people look at it. Nuclear weapons are a trump card, something that essentially makes you, in the limit, invulnerable - maybe that other nation can pound you with conventional forces, but you can always hit them with a nuke. It keeps things at arms length, in a sense. It has enforced, more or less, a military peace since the end of World War II where, despite armed conflict, there has been no significant territory change (except the fall of the USSR, which was non-military).

      Imagine you're Nation X. Nation Y, who you may or may not be on such good terms with - it doesn't matter, really - gets a 100% effective Nuclear Missile Shield (this is a theory). Suddenly, you realize that your nuclear weapons are useless. They are free to use their nuclear weapons - and conventional forces - against you with almost pure impunity. This is worrying.

      In a way, gaining a nuclear defense disarms everyone else in the world, and, as a result, presents them with a security threat.

    4. Re:General question... by idsofmarch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually this system is not designed for ICBMs, but rather to take out the Katyusha rockets that are periodically tossed in the Israeli's midst from the Golan Heights. This would be most effective in theater against artillery and multiple-launch rockets and possibly against something as large as a Scud. Again, not Star Wars which is space-based anti-ICBM technology that would only be useful against those who actually have ICBMs, but not enough to overwhelm the system. Star-Wars has been a huge waste of money and the anti-ICBM crowd is deluded in thinking this is the big threat, but behind able to knock down a Katyusha, not that's something our military could use. Think of it also as the replacement for the close-in-defense guns currently on US ships which are very ripe targets for Exocets.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    5. Re:General question... by MJOverkill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That underlying social problem is something the rest of us call opinions

      No, not opinions, problems. Like poverty and famine for example. These specific issues are never seen in the western world, so we do not place them high on our priorities. We are more concerned with defending ourselves against threats that are not likely to come, or will only arise as a result of weapons development.

    6. Re:General question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When are you guys gonna realize that you need to just use the laser on the enemy ground targets?

      Uh. We're not stupid. Tell people, "we're building a laser that will shoot down ballistic missiles. It will eventually be able to shoot down much smaller mortar fire. It's a defensive project that will make our troops in the field AND people here at home safer," and you get a budget. Tell people, "we want to build a laser to melt vehicles and armaments from the air. It'll eventually be able to melt people's brains if they're on the bottom floor of a three story building," and you don't get a budget. Most of the laser physics that apply to Project A will also apply to Project B, so you pitch Project A and you'll eventually end up with Project A and B completed.

    7. Re:General question... by ReTay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "So a U.S.-Isreal team develops. Now. someone will develop energy absorbing /reflecting /deflecting/whatever missiles."

      Right.... I don't know I personally would like to have the most updated hardware I can if I have to go into battle. You can carry sticks and stones if you want I want the most deadly equipment and as much of it as I can carry.

      And to your second point.
      No amount of money will help religious fever.
      Remember anyone who tells you that tying a bomb to your chest and blowing up civilians will get you attended in the next world by a pack of virgins and they will give lots of money to your family is..

      A Not your friend
      B Probably lying on at least one count
      C Certifiable
      D Someone who is always happy to sacrifice someone
      else

      I don't know just my two bits

    8. Re:General question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Airplanes can barely keep themselves in the air. How can they then carry any kind of load?"
      - William Pickering, Astronomer (1908)

      "Airplanes suffers from so many technical faults that it is only a matter of time before any reasonable man realizes that they are useless!"
      - Scientific American (1910)

      "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris."
      - Orville Wright.

      "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
      - Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre] (circa 1911)
      He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918

      "Aviation is good for sport, but for the Army it is useless!"
      - Marshal Ferdinand Foch

    9. Re:General question... by Obyron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most scholars of history agree that the arms race you warn about was what brought about the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The United States is the richest country in the world, and it's got more than its fair share of brilliant minds.

      We develop a laser that can shoot down ICBMs. In response potentially hostile nations (PHNs) begin spending money like a housewife on holiday to develop a weapon that (they hope) can penetrate the defense... Maybe... in the event of a war that may not happen. In the end game we've still got a laser capable of shooting down artillery, cruise missiles, and (I've not seen anyone else mention this yet) enemy aircraft. What do the PHNs have? Debt in the billions-to-trillions of dollars range that they probably can't afford that will play its part in collapsing their economy.

      The best weapons platform you'll ever develop is the one that scares your enemy so much he spends himself into oblivion to counteract it. At the end of the day he's gone, and you haven't really had to do anything. It worked for Reagan with Star Wars, and by the sound of things it might just work again.

      --
      --Obyron
    10. Re:General question... by Avihson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we just hold hands and sing Kumbya all the world's problems will go away.

      The underlying social problem is human nature! Greed, jealousy, avavice, have been problems since the dawn of man.
      If I keep my "riches" you will hate me for having more than you.
      If I give you some of my posessions, you will hate me for making you feel inferior.
      If I destroy all my wealth and become like you you will hate me for wasting what I had.
      If I help you to be like me, you will never like me until you have ground me under your boot heels.

      So I may as well just live my life my way and keep you at arms length.

      Q: Why do you think it is called a social ladder?

      A: You look down, all you see are smiling faces, and you look up and all you see are assholes.

  2. Re:wow by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't. Neither is an F-16, does that mean an F-16 is worthless? The weapon isn't meant to counter car bombers, obviously.

    This is a tactical battlefield weapon meant for force protection. The article concerns the mobile THEL laser.

    The larger, immobile THEL theoretically will be able to shoot down *mortar shells*. It has already been tested to successfully shoot down Katyushka small caliber rockets. These are revolutionary weapons systems.

  3. Re:Domestic Use Soon? by delong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how long until these will be deployed domestically, around various government buildings (such as the White House, the US Capitol, or the Pentagon).

    It won't. This isn't a "missile defense system" per se, it is a tactical battefield weapon designed for force protection. To be used to defend troops and installations against short range tactical weapons like rockets, mortars, cruise missiles, etc. Not of much use in the continental US.

    However, these lasers, and especially the larger, immobile THEL version, are perfect for Israel. Israeli communities and the IDF are constantly being harrassed by hit and run Katushka rocket, mortar, and guided missile threats from HAMAS and other Pal terrorists in the Territories, and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

  4. Read the article by ksheff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a tactical defensive weapon for use on a battlefield, not strategic defense. This is a mobile system meant to protect against small rockets like Katyusha class weapons. To understand why Israel is involved, you only have to look at the map on this page.

    They would also be useful in defending targets against rocket attacks like the ones that have occurred in Iraq.
    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  5. Re:wow by zors · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thats like saying that because a handgun cant be effectively used against airborne targets, its useless.

    You need different defense systems for different offensive systems.

    This is for use againt missiles, mortar shells, and the like.

  6. Great!! What if you miss? by OgTheBarbarian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not so much for a ground based laser, it just keeps going and picks off Hubble, or the ISS or (God No!) Fox. But mounted to an aircraft, if it either misses or punches right through the target object, anything within range before the beam hits it's dispersion threshhold could be toast. Homes, office buildings, people spontaneously combusting, yada yada... You get the idea. The tinfoil hat just don't cut it anymore I guess. Eep. jm2c

  7. this is silly by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought slashdot was full of nerds? What kind of nerds don't understand simple physics?

    These lasers emit energy in the megawatt region. A mirror takes photons - absorbs them - and then reemits them. There aren't many mirrors that can absorb 10 million watts of energy.

    In fact, that very problem is what makes laser weaponry so damn expensive and difficult to do. They need very heavy, exotic and expensive mirror systems to focus and aim the laser energy without being destroyed by the laser themselves. You can't just go down to home depot and buy a big mirror. You can't just coat a missile in some silly bike reflectors or shiny foil.

    Even if you were to somehow invent a reflective coating that could handle megawatts of energy - and still be light enough to just paint on a missile - you'd have to deal with the coating becoming marred in flight, as anything the laser comes in contact with (ie, birdshit or what have you) its going to superheat to thousands of degrees and burn right through and destroy the missile.

    --

    -